Surgical outcomes of colonic stents as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant colorectal obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of high quality prospective and randomised controlled trials

Impact of self-expanding metal stents on long-term survival outcomes as a bridge to surgery in patients with colon cancer obstruction: Current state and future prospects

Since self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) were first introduced in acute colon cancer obstruction, the increased rate of primary anastomosis and improved quality of life following SEMS placement have been clearly shown. However, it was demonstrated that SEMS are associated with higher recurrence rates. Although several trials have shown that overall and disease-free survival in patients following SEMS placement is similar with patients undergoing emergency surgery, obstruction and a high incidence of recurrence imposed many concerns. The optimal time interval from SEMS to surgery is still a matter of debate. Some studies have recommended a time interval of ~2 weeks between SEMS insertion and elective surgery. A prolonged interval of time from SEMS insertion to elective surgery and the administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has been proposed. SEMS-NAC might have advantages for improving the surgical and long-term survival outcomes of patients with acute colon cancer obstruction, which is an optional approach in the management of acute colon cancer obstruction.

The use of self-expanding metallic stents in the management of benign colonic obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Patients presenting with large bowel obstruction (LBO) frequently undergo emergency surgery that is associated with significant morbidity. In malignant LBO, endoscopic approaches with placement is a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS), have been proposed to prevent emergency surgery and act as a bridge to an elective procedure-with the intention of avoiding a stoma and reducing morbidity. This systematic review aims to assess the quality and outcomes of data available on the use of SEMS in benign causes of colonic obstruction.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the protocol was registered on Prospero (ID: CRD42021239363). PUBMED, MEDLINE, HMIC, CINAHL, AMED, EMBASE, APA and Cochrane databases were searched. Studies were assessed for quality utilising the MINORS criteria. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using random effects models.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included for analysis. 300 patients were included with an average age of 68, and a male predominance of 57%. The quality of the papers included were at risk of bias. The pooled rate of technical success of procedure was 94.4% (95% CI 90.5-96.8%) The pooled rate of clinical success was 77.6% (95% CI: 66.6-85.7%). Adverse effects were low, with perforation 8.8% (4.5-16.6%), recurrence 26.5% (17.2-38.5%) and stent migration 22.5% (14.1-33.8%).

DISCUSSION

This systematic review demonstrated that SEMS for benign colonic obstruction can be a safe and successful procedure. The utilisation of SEMS in malignant disease as a bridge to surgery has been well documented. Whilst the limitations of the data interpreted are appreciated, we postulate that SEMS could be utilised to decompress patients acutely and allow pre-operative optimisation, leading to a more elective surgery with less subsequent morbidity.

Management Strategies for Malignant Left-Sided Colonic Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Propensity Score Matching Studies

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment strategy for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction remains controversial. Emergency colonic resection has been the standard of care; however, self-expanding metallic stenting as a bridge to surgery may offer short-term advantages, although oncological concerns exist. Decompressing stoma may provide a valid alternative, with limited evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and Bayesian arm random-effects model network meta-analysis comparing the approaches for management of malignant left-sided colonic obstruction.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases was conducted from inception to August 22, 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies.

INTERVENTIONS

Emergency colonic resection, self-expanding metallic stent, and decompressing stoma.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Oncologic efficacy, morbidity, successful minimally invasive surgery, primary anastomosis, and permanent stoma rates.

RESULTS

Nineteen of 5225 articles identified met our inclusion criteria. Stenting (risk ratio 0.57; 95% credible interval, 0.33-0.79) and decompressing stomas (risk ratio 0.46, 95% credible interval: 0.18-0.92) resulted in a significant reduction in the permanent stoma rate. Stenting facilitated minimally invasive surgery more frequently (risk ratio 4.10; 95% credible interval, 1.45-13.13) and had lower overall morbidity (risk ratio 0.58; 95% credible interval, 0.35-0.86). A pairwise analysis of primary anastomosis rates showed increased stenting (risk ratio 1.40; 95% credible interval, 1.31-1.49) compared with emergency resection. There was a significant decrease in the 90-day mortality with stenting (risk ratio 0.63; 95% credible interval, 0.41-0.95) compared with resection. There were no differences in disease-free and overall survival rates, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

There is a lack of randomized controlled trials and propensity score matching data comparing short-term and long-term outcomes for diverting stomas compared to self-expanding metallic stents. Two trials compared self-expanding metallic stents and diverting stomas in left-sided malignant colonic obstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides high-level evidence that a bridge-to-surgery strategy is safe for the management of left-sided malignant colonic obstruction and may facilitate minimally invasive surgery, increase primary anastomosis rates, and reduce permanent stoma rates and postoperative morbidity compared with emergency colonic resection.

Colon stenting as a bridge to surgery in obstructive colorectal cancer management

Colonic stent placement is a commonly used bridging strategy for surgery in patients with obstructive colorectal cancer. The procedure involves the placement of a self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) across the obstructive lesion to restore intestinal patency and alleviate the symptoms of obstruction. By allowing patients to receive surgery in a planned and staged manner with time for preoperative optimization and bowel preparation, stent placement may reduce the need for emergency surgery, which is associated with higher complication rates and poorer outcomes. This review focuses on the role of colon stenting as a bridge to surgery in the management of obstructive colorectal cancer. SEMS as a bridge to surgery for left-sided colon cancer has been demonstrated to be particularly useful; however, further research is needed for its application in cases of right-sided colon cancer. Colon stent placement also has limitations and potential complications including stent migration, re-obstruction, and perforation. However, the timing of curative surgery after SEMS placement remains inconclusive. Considering the literature to date, performing surgery at an interval of approximately 2 weeks is considered appropriate. Therefore, colonic stent placement may be an effective strategy as a bridge to surgery in patients with obstructive colorectal cancer.

Management of obstructed colorectal carcinoma in an emergency setting: An update

Colorectal carcinoma is common, particularly on the left side. In 20% of patients, obstruction and ileus may be the first clinical manifestations of a carcinoma that has advanced (stage II, III or even IV). Diagnosis is based on clinical presentation, plain abdominal radiogram, computed tomography (CT), CT colonography and positron emission tomography/CT. The best management strategy in terms of short-term operative or interventional and long-term oncological outcomes remains unknown. For the most common left-sided obstruction, the first choice should be either emergency surgery or endoscopic decompression by self-expendable metal stents or tubes. The operative plan should be either one-stage or two-stage resection. One-stage resection with on-table bowel decompression and irrigation can be accompanied or not accompanied by proximal defunctioning stoma (colostomy or ileostomy). Primary anastomosis is more convenient but has increased risks of anastomotic leakage and morbidity. Two-stage resection (Hartmann's procedure) is safer and the most widely used despite temporally affecting quality of life. Damage control surgery in high-risk frail patients is less frequently performed since it can be successfully substituted with endoscopic stenting or tubing. For the less common right-sided obstruction, one-stage surgical resection is more beneficial than endoscopic decompression. The role of minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic or robotic) is a subject of debate. Emergency laparoscopic-assisted management is advantageous to some extent but requires much expertise due to inherent difficulties in dissecting the distended colon and the risk of rupture and subsequent septic complications. The decompressing stent as a bridge to elective surgery more substantially decreases the risks of morbidity and mortality than emergency surgery for decompression and has equivalent medium-term overall survival and disease-free survival rates. Its combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation may have a positive effect on long-term oncological outcomes. Management plans are crucial and must be individualized to better fit each case.

Colonic stent as a bridge to surgery versus emergency rection for malignant left-sided colorectal obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The role of self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) implantation as a bridge to surgery in malignant left-sided colorectal obstruction (MLCO) remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of SEMS implantation versus emergency surgery (ER) in the treatment of MLCO.

METHODS

Four major literature databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science) were searched to collect articles published before April 20, 2023. After determining random or fixed-effect models based on heterogeneity tests, odds ratios (RR) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Nineteen randomized controlled studies were included. The main outcomes included overall tumor recurrence rate, 30-day mortality rate, and overall incidence of complications. Secondary outcomes included mortality-related indicators, tumor recurrence-related indicators, surgery-related indicators, and other relevant indicators. The study found that there was no significant difference in the 30-day mortality rate between the SEMS group and the er group. However, the SEMS group had a lower overall incidence of complications (RR = 0.787, P = .004), lower incision infection rate (RR = 0.472, P = .003), shorter operation time (SMD = -0.591, P = .000), lower intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -1.046, P = .000), lower intraoperative transfusion rate (RR = 0.624, P = .021), lower permanent stoma rate (RR = 0.499, P = .000), lower overall stoma rate (RR = 0.520,P = .000), shorter hospital stay (SMD = -0.643, P = .014), and more lymph node dissections during surgery (SMD = 0.222, 95% CI: 0.021-0.423, P = .031), as well as a higher primary anastomosis rate (RR = 0.472, 95% CI: 0.286-0.7 77, P = .003), among other advantages. However, the SEMS group had a higher overall tumor recurrence rate (RR = 1.339, P = .048).

CONCLUSION

SEMS has significant advantages over er in relieving clinical symptoms and facilitating postoperative recovery in MLCO, but does not reduce the tumor recurrence rate. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with SEMS may provide a new approach to the treatment of MLCO.

Best Practices in Esophageal, Gastroduodenal, and Colonic Stenting

Endoscopic stenting is an area of endoscopy that has witnessed noteworthy advancements over the last decade, resulting in evolving clinical practices among gastroenterologists around the world. Indications for endoscopic stenting have progressively expanded, becoming a frequent part of the management algorithm for various benign and malignant conditions of the gastrointestinal tract, from esophagus to rectum. In addition to expanded indications, continuous technological enhancements and development of novel endoscopic stents have resulted in an increased success of these approaches and, in some cases, allowed new applications. This review aimed to summarize best practices in esophageal, gastroduodenal, and colonic stenting.

Self-expandable metallic stent as bridge to surgery vs. emergency resection in obstructive right-sided colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Emergency resection is common for malignant right-sided obstructive colon cancer. As there is evidence showing a potential benefit of self-expandable metal stents as a bridge to surgery, a new debate has been initiated.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare self-expandable metal stents with emergency resection in right-sided obstructive colon cancer.

DATA SOURCE

A systematic search was conducted accessing Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies reporting either emergency surgery or stent placement in right-sided obstructive colon cancer were included.

INTERVENTION

Stent or emergency resection in right-sided obstructive colon cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Morbidity rate, mortality rate, stoma rate, laparoscopic resection rate, anastomotic insufficiency rate, success rate of stent.

RESULTS

A total of 6343 patients from 16 publications were analyzed. The stent success rate was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87 to 0.95) with perforation of 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.06). Emergency resection was performed laparoscopically at a rate of 0.15 (95% CI, 0.09 to 0.24). Primary anastomosis rate in emergency resection was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97) with an anastomotic insufficiency rate of 0.07 (95% CI, 0.04 to 0.11). The mortality rate after emergency resection was 0.05 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.09). Primary anastomosis and anastomotic insufficiency rate were similar between the two groups (RR: 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.1; p = 0.56 and RR: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.93; p = 0.33). The mortality rate in emergency resection was higher compared to stent (RR: 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 10.89, p = 0.016).

LIMITATION

No randomized controlled trials are available.

CONCLUSION

Stent is a safe and successful alternative to emergency resection and may increase the rate of minimally invasive surgery. Emergency resection, however, remains safe and did not result in higher rate of anastomotic insufficiency. Further high-quality comparative studies are warranted to assess long-term outcomes.

Preoperative stents for the treatment of obstructing left-sided colon cancer: a national analysis

BACKGROUND

Given the risks associated with urgent colectomy for large bowel obstruction, preoperative colonic stenting has been utilized for decompression and optimization prior to surgery. This study examined national trends in the use of colonic stenting as a bridge to resection for malignant large bowel obstruction and evaluated outcomes relative to immediate colectomy.

METHODS

Adults undergoing colonic stenting or colectomy for malignant, left/sigmoid large bowel obstruction were identified in the 2010-2016 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients were classified as immediate resection (IR) or delayed resection (DR) if undergoing colonic stenting prior to colectomy. Generalized linear models were used to evaluate the impact of resection strategy on ostomy creation, in-hospital mortality, and complications.

RESULTS

Among 9,706 patients, 9.7% underwent colonic stenting, which increased from 7.7 to 16.4% from 2010 to 2016 (p < 0.001). Compared to IR, the DR group was younger (63.9 vs 65.9 years, p = 0.04), had fewer comorbidities (Elixhauser Index 3.5 vs 3.9, p = 0.001), and was more commonly managed at high-volume centers (89.4% vs 68.1%, p < 0.001). Laparoscopic resections were more frequent among the DR group (33.1% vs 13.0%, p < 0.001), while ostomy rates were significantly lower (21.5% vs 53.0%, p < 0.001). After risk adjustment, colonic stenting was associated with reduced odds of ostomy creation (0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.24-0.46), but similar odds of mortality and complications.

CONCLUSION

Colonic stenting is increasingly utilized for malignant, left-sided bowel obstructions, and associated with lower ostomy rates but comparable clinical outcomes. These findings suggest the relative safety of colonic stenting for malignant large bowel obstruction when clinically appropriate.

A retrospective evaluation of short-term results from colonic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant colonic obstruction

The efficacy and safety of self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) placement as a bridge to elective surgery versus emergency surgery to treat malignant colonic obstruction is debated. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with malignant colonic obstruction treated using different procedure. Subjects admitted to the authors' department with colonic obstruction (n = 87) were studied. They underwent colonic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery (SEMS group: n = 14) or emergency surgery (ES group: n = 22).Their demographic characteristics, stoma rate, laparoscopy rate and postoperative complications were analyzed, and the potential risk factors of postoperative complications and the optimal time interval from SEMS implantation to elective surgery were explored. The stoma rate was 15.4% in the SEMS group versus 60.0% in the ES group (P = 0.015), and the postoperative complication rate was 7.7% in the SEMS group versus 40.0% in the ES group (P = 0.042). The proportion of patients undergoing laparoscopy in SEMS group was significantly higher than that in ES group (69.2% vs. 15.0%; P = 0.003).The effect of ASA grade on postoperative complications was statistically significant (OR = 24.565; P = 0.008). The Receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve could not determine the optimal time interval between SEMS implantation and elective surgery (AUC = 0.466). SEMS implantation has the advantages of lower temporary stoma rate, less postoperative complications and higher laparoscopy rate compared with ES in the treatment of left malignant intestinal obstruction. ASA grade is a risk factor for postoperative complications. However, larger sample size prospective randomized controlled trials (RCT) are still needed to confirm long-term oncological outcomes.

Colonic stent for bridge to surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: A review of the literature after 2020

It has been found that 8%-29% of colorectal cancers are obstructive. The use of “stent as bridge to surgery” is one of the most debated topics in obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer management. The endoscopic placement of a self-expanding metallic stent as bridge to surgery (BTS) could turn an emergency surgery to an elective one, increasing the number of primary anastomoses instead of stoma and facilitating the laparoscopic approach instead of an open one. However, in recent years the possible risk of perforations and microperforations facilitating cancer spread related to the use of self-expanding metallic stent for BTS has been highlighted. Therefore, despite the useful short-term outcomes related to BTS, the recent literature has focused on long-term outcomes investigating the disease-free survival, the recurrence rate and the overall survival. Due to discordant data, international guidelines are still conflicting, and the debate is still open. There is not agreement about using self-expanding metallic stent for BTS as the gold standard.

Current practice for the treatment of obstructive left-sided colon cancer in China: a nationwide cross-sectional survey

PURPOSE

This study surveyed the current practice of surgical treatment of obstructive left-sided colon cancer (OLCC) in China.

METHODS

All colorectal surgery departments at tertiary or secondary hospitals in China were invited to complete a web-based questionnaire between August 27 and September 2, 2020.

RESULTS

Overall, completed questionnaire were received from 357 hospitals. Emergency surgery was the mainstay of treatment for OLCC, with the open approach accounting for up to 61.62%. The stoma rate of emergency surgery was up to 80%, mainly due to inadequate bowel preparation and severe edema of colon walls. Hartmann's procedure (61.62%) was the most preferred operation. A total of 243 hospitals (68.7%) reported that they would consider the use of a self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) as a bridge for elective surgery. More than 50% of the hospitals participating in this study reported the success rate of SEMS placement, as well as the resolution rate of obstruction more than 80%, and the stent-related perforation rate was < 5%. A total of 126 hospitals considered carrying out a strategy of SEMS followed by neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to elective surgery and believed that it might further improve treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

SEMS is a feasible option for the treatment of OLCC in addition to traditional emergency surgery, and its clinical benefits have been preliminarily recognized.

Self-expanding metal stent placement and pathological alterations among obstructive colorectal cancer cases

BACKGROUND

Experimental studies suggest that self-expanding metal stents (SEMSs) enhance the aggressive behavior of obstructive colorectal cancer. The influence of SEMS placement on pathological alterations remains to be elucidated.

AIM

To determine whether SEMS placement is associated with molecular or pathological features of colorectal carcinoma tissues.

METHODS

Using a nonbiased molecular pathological epidemiology database of patients with obstructive colorectal cancers, we examined the association of SEMS placement with molecular or pathological features, including tumor size, histological type, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)-pTNM stage, and mutation statuses in colorectal cancer tissues compared with the use of transanal tubes. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to adjust for potential confounders.

RESULTS

SEMS placement was significantly associated with venous invasion (P < 0.01), but not with the other features examined, including tumor size, disease stage, mutation status, and lymphatic invasion. In both the univariable and multivariable models with adjustment for potential factors including tumor location, histological type, and AJCC-pT stage, SEMS placement was significantly associated with severe venous invasion (P < 0.01). For the outcome category of severe venous invasion, the multivariable odds ratio for SEMS placement relative to transanal tube placement was 19.4 (95% confidence interval: 5.24–96.2). No significant differences of disease-free survival and overall survival were observed between SEMS and transanal tube groups.

CONCLUSION

SEMS placement might be associated with severe venous invasion in colorectal cancer tissue, providing an impetus for further investigations on the pathological alterations by SEMSs in colorectal cancer development.

Case report: Stent-first strategy as a potential approach in the management of malignant right-sided colonic obstruction with cardiovascular risks

In obstructing left-sided colonic or rectal cancer, endoscopic stent placement with the purpose of decompression and bridge to elective colon resection has been widely utilized and accepted. However, in malignant right-sided colonic obstruction, stent placement prior to colectomy is still highly controversial, due to lower clinical success and high anastomotic leak. We report a case of malignant right-sided colonic obstruction based on the radiological findings of irregular thickening of ascending colon wall and dilation of proximal large bowel on enhanced computed tomography scan. The 72-year-old woman presented with obvious abdominal distension. Due to concerning cardiovascular complications as intermittent chest pain and a long history of type 2 diabetes, a three-step therapeutic plan was instigated. Initially, a self-expandable metallic stent was placed palliatively to relieve the bowel obstruction. Consecutively, coronary angiography was performed, and two coronary stents were implanted to alleviate more than 80% stenosis of two main coronary arteries. One month later, laparoscopic radical resection of right colon and lymphadenectomy were successfully performed, with a blood loss less than 50 millimeters and a harvest of 29 lymph nodes, 1 being positive. The patient was discharged one week postoperatively with no complications, and received adjuvant chemotherapy one month later. During a follow-up of more than one year, the patient was in complete remission with no recurrence and cardiovascular events. In patients presenting with malignant right-sided colonic obstruction and peril of high cardiovascular risks, we propose colonic and coronary stent-first strategy to emergency surgery as a potential approach so as to ensure sufficient cardiovascular preparation improving perioperative safety. Moreover, the anatomical location of the tumor would be significantly achievable thus granting high-quality radical colon resection and lymphadenectomy.

Upfront surgery versus self-expanding metallic stent as bridge to surgery in left-sided colonic cancer obstruction: A multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

Oncological outcomes of self-expanding metallic stent used as a bridge to surgery in potential curative patients with left-sided colonic cancer obstruction remain unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate perioperative and mid-term oncological outcomes of 2 of the currently most commonly performed treatments in left-sided colonic cancer obstruction.

METHODS

This is a retrospective multicenter study including patients with left-sided colonic cancer obstruction treated with curative intent between 2013 and 2017. The presence of metastasis at diagnosis was an exclusion criterion. The primary outcome was to evaluate the noninferiority, in terms of overall survival, of bridge to surgery strategy compared with emergency colonic resection. The secondary outcomes were perioperative morbimortality, disease free survival, local recurrence, and distant recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 564 patients were included, 320 in the emergency colonic resection group and 244 in the bridge to surgery group. Twenty-seven patients of the bridge-to-surgery group needed urgent operation. Postoperative morbidity rates were statistically higher in the emergency colonic resection group (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.37 [0.24-0.55], P < .001). There was no difference in 90-day mortality between groups (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.85 [0.36-1.99], P = .702). The median follow-up was 3.80 years (2.29-4.92). The results show the noninferiority of bridge to surgery versus emergency colonic resection in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval) 0.78 [0.56-1.07], P = .127). There were no differences in disease free survival, distant recurrence, and local recurrence rates between bridge to surgery and emergency colonic resection groups.

CONCLUSION

Self-expanding metallic stent as bridge to surgery might not lead to a negative impact on the long-term prognosis of the tumor compared with emergency colonic resection in expert hands and selected patients.

Ostomy Does Not Lead to Worse Outcomes After Bowel Resection With Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review

Background

Debulking cytoreduction surgery with bowel resection is a common intervention for ovarian cancer. It is controversial whether ostomy causes worse survival outcomes and how clinical physicians should choose which patients to undergo ostomy. During this study, we performed a systematic review to determine whether ostomy leads to worse outcomes after bowel resection compared to anastomosis. We also summarized the possible indications for ostomy.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for articles containing the phrase "ovarian cancer with bowel resection" that were published between 2016 and 2021. We included studies that compared primary anastomosis with ostomy. We mainly focused on differences in the anastomotic leakage rate, length of hospital stay, overall survival, and other survival outcomes associated with the two procedures.

Results and Conclusion

Of the 763 studies, three were ultimately included in the systematic review (N=1411). We found that ostomy did not contribute to worse survival outcomes, and that the stoma-related complications were acceptable. Indications for ostomy require further study. Bowel resection segment margins and the distance from the anastomosis to the anal verge require consideration.

Recent Updates in Gastrointestinal Stent Placement from the Esophagus to the Colon: A Radiological Perspective

Fluoroscopic-guided stent placement has become an advantageous treatment option for diverse gastrointestinal disorders. In addition to palliative stent placement in patients with inoperable cancers, stenting has gradually expanded to other conditions, including as a bridge to surgery, as well as in patients' benign lesions and anastomotic strictures or leaks. This narrative review describes the indications, efficacy and safety of stent placement from the esophagus to the colon, including current recommendations, recent updates, and novel stents.

Clinical validation of implementing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol in elderly colorectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of applying enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in elderly colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

The medical records of patients who underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery at our institution, from January 2017 to December 2017, were reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the young group (YG, patients aged 70 and under 70 years) and the old group (OG, patients over 70 years old). Perioperative outcomes and length of hospital stay were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

In total, 335 patients were enrolled; 237 were YG and 98 were OG. Despite the poorer baseline characteristics of OG, the perioperative outcomes were similar. Length of hospital stay was not different between the groups (YG, 5 days vs. OG, 5 days; P=0.320). When comparing the postoperative complications using the comprehensive complication index (CCI), there was no significant difference (YG, 8.0±13.2 vs. OG, 11.7±23.0; P=0.130). In regression analysis, old age (>70 years) was not a risk factor for high CCI in all patients. In multivariate analysis, C-reactive protein (CRP) level on postoperative day (POD) 3 to 4 was the only strong predictive factor for high CCI in elderly patients.

CONCLUSION

Implementing the ERAS protocol in patients aged >70 years is safe and feasible. High CRP (≥6.47 mg/dL) on POD 3 to 4 can be used as a safety index to postpone discharge in elderly patients.

Predictive factors of high comprehensive complication index in colorectal cancer patients using Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol: role as a safety net in early discharge

Purpose

This study was performed to evaluate complications using comprehensive complication index (CCI) in colorectal cancer patients with implementation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol, and to investigate the predictive factors associated with high morbidity rates. It can be used as a safety net in determining the timing of discharge.

Methods

A total of 335 consecutive patients who underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery between January 2017 and December 2017 at a single tertiary center were enrolled. Postoperative complications were defined as occurring within 30 days after surgery. The predictive factor analysis for the high CCI group was also performed.

Results

In total, 116 patients experienced postoperative complications. Wound-related complications and postoperative ileus were the most common. The mean CCI for overall colorectal cancer surgery was 9.1 ± 16.7. Patients featuring low CCI (<26.2) were 297 (88.7%) and high CCI were 38 (11.3%). In multivariable analysis, obstructive colorectal cancer (odds ratio, 3.278; 95% confidence interval, 1.217–8.829; P = 0.019) and CRP value on postoperative day (POD) 3–4 (odds ratio, 1.152; 95% confidence interval, 1.036–1.280; P < 0.010) were significant predictors for high CCI.

Conclusion

The clinical usefulness of CCI in colorectal cancer patients with the ERAS protocol was verified, and it can be used for surgical quality control. More cautious care is needed and the timing of discharge should be carefully determined for patients with obstructive colorectal cancer or POD 3–4 CRP of ≥6.47 mg/dL.

Long-term survival and postoperative complications of pre-liver transplantation transarterial chemoembolisation in hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this meta-analysis was to conduct a contemporary systematic review of high quality non-randomised controlled trials to determine the effect of pre-liver transplantation (LT) transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) on long-term survival and complications of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.

BACKGROUND

TACE is used as a neoadjuvant therapy to mitigate waitlist drop-out for patients with HCC awaiting LT. Previous studies have conflicting conclusions on the effect of TACE on long-term survival and complications of HCC patients undergoing LT.

METHODS

CINAHL, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Baseline characteristics included number of patients outside Milan criteria, tumour diameter, MELD score, and time on the waiting list. Primary outcomes included 3- and 5-year overall and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included tumour recurrence, 30-day postoperative mortality, and hepatic artery and biliary complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-one high-quality NRCTs representing 8242 patients were included. Tumour diameter was significantly larger in TACE patients (3.49 cm vs 3.15 cm, P = 0.02) and time on the waiting list was significantly longer in TACE patients (4.87 months vs 3.46 months, P = 0.05), while MELD score was significantly higher in non-TACE patients (10.81 vs 12.35, P = 0.005). All primary and secondary outcomes displayed non-significant differences.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with TACE had similar survival and postoperative outcomes to non-TACE patients, however, they had worse prognostic features compared to non-TACE patients. These findings strongly support the current US and European clinical practice guidelines that neoadjuvant TACE can be used for patients with longer expected waiting list times (specifically >6 months). Randomised controlled trials would be needed to increase the quality of evidence.

Outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery in nonagenarian patients: a multicenter retrospective study

Background

The use of surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) aged ≥90 years remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term postoperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of CRC surgery in patients within this age group.

Methods

A total of 151 consecutive nonagenarian patients who underwent CRC surgery were included from 3 different hospitals. The Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) was used to grade postoperative complications. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with CCI and overall survival (OS).

Results

The patients had a mean age of 92.8 years (standard deviation ±1.9 years). Forty-six patients (30.5%) underwent emergency surgery, and 105 patients (69.5%) underwent elective surgery. The postoperative complications rate was 66.2% (100/151), and the mean CCI was 26.3 (±30.8). Twenty-three patients (15.2%) died postoperatively, and the perioperative mortality rates for elective surgery and emergency surgery were 7.6% (8/105) and 32.6% (15/46), respectively (P<0.001). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 77.5%, 53.9%, and 38.6%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed emergency surgery and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score to be predictors of postoperative complications. Advanced tumor stage, palliative surgery, ASA score ≥4, and CCI >17 were associated with poor OS.

Conclusions

CRC surgery should not be denied to nonagenarian patients. Surgical treatment can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality, and achieves long-term survival in a select group.

Stent as a bridge to surgery versus urgent surgery for malignant right colonic obstruction: A multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The impact of self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) for malignant right colonic obstruction remains undefined. The aim of this study was to compare short-term postoperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery (SBTS) and urgent colectomy for patients with malignant right-sided obstruction.

METHODS

A total of 98 consecutive patients who underwent SEMS placement during the period 2004-2015 from three hospitals were included. For comparative analyses, patients were matched (1:2) with 196 patients treated with emergency colectomy from our prospective database.

RESULTS

The two groups were comparable in terms of demographics and tumor characteristics. The proportion of patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy was higher in SBTS group than urgent colectomy group (75.5% vs. 37.2%; p < 0.001). Patients treated with SBTS were less likely to have a temporary stoma constructed (3.1% vs. 10.7%; p = 0.024). SBTS was associated with significantly less median estimated blood loss (90 vs. 100 ml; p = 0.029), shorter length of hospital stay (11 vs. 12 days; p < 0.001), lower overall postoperative complication rate (18.4% vs. 31.3%; p = 0.018), and wound-related complication rate (5.1% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.019) compared with urgent surgery. Reoperation rate, 30-day mortality, and lymph nodes harvested were not significantly different between two groups. Disease-free survival rate and overall survival rate were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SEMS insertion is safe and feasible for treating malignant right-sided obstruction. SBTS is associated with better short-term outcomes and equivalent long-term oncologic results compared with urgent colectomy.

Comparison of the prognosis of four different treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

There is controversy regarding the efficacy of different treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction. This study investigated the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of several treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction.

Methods

We searched for articles published in PubMed, Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science, and Cochrane Library between January 1, 2000, and July 1, 2020. We screened out the literature comparing different treatment strategies. Evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes of different treatment strategies. The network meta-analysis summarizes the hazard ratio, odds ratio, mean difference, and its 95% confidence interval.

Results

The network meta-analysis involved 48 articles, including 8 (randomized controlled trials) RCTs and 40 non-RCTs. Primary outcomes: the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of the CS-BTS strategy and the DS-BTS strategy were significantly better than those of the ES strategy, and the 5-year OS of the DS-BTS strategy was significantly better than that of CS-BTS. The long-term survival of TCT-BTS was not significantly different from those of CS-BTS and ES. Secondary outcomes: compared with emergency resection (ER) strategies, colonic stent-bridge to surgery (CS-BTS) and transanal colorectal tube-bridge to surgery (TCT-BTS) strategies can significantly increase the primary anastomosis rate, CS-BTS and decompressing stoma-bridge to surgery (DS-BTS) strategies can significantly reduce mortality, and CS-BTS strategies can significantly reduce the permanent stoma rate. The hospital stay of DS-BTS is significantly longer than that of other strategies. There was no significant difference in the anastomotic leakage levels of several treatment strategies.

Conclusion

Comprehensive literature research, we find that CS-BTS and DS-BTS strategies can bring better 5-year OS and DFS than ER. DS-BTS strategies have a better 5-year OS than CS-BTS strategies. Without considering the hospital stays, DS-BTS strategy is the best choice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-021-00355-2.

Current Status of the Self-Expandable Metal Stent as a Bridge to Surgery Versus Emergency Surgery in Colorectal Cancer: Results from an Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature

Background: The current use of endoscopic stenting as a bridge to surgery is not always accepted in standard clinical practice to treat neoplastic colonic obstructions. Objectives: The role of colonic self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) positioning as a bridge to resective surgery versus emergency surgery (ES) for malignant obstruction, using all new data and available variables, was studied and we focused on short- and long-term results. Materials and Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases were included. The search comprised only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the interventions that included SEMS positioning versus ES. The primary outcomes were the rates of overall postoperative mortality, clinical and technical success. The secondary outcomes were the short- and long-term results. Results: A total of 12 studies were eligible for further analyses. A laparoscopic colectomy was the most common operation performed in the SEMS group, whereas the traditional open approach was commonly used in the ES group. Intraoperative colonic lavage was seldomly performed during ES. There were no differences in mortality rates between the two groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.04; I² = 0%). In the SEMS group, the rate of successful primary anastomosis was significantly higher in of SEMS (69.75%) than in the ES (55.07%) (RR 1.26, 95% 245 CI 1.01 to 1.57; I² = 86%). Conversely, the upfront Hartmann procedure was performed more frequently in the ES (39.1%) as compared to the SEMS group (23.4%) (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.85; I² = 23%). The overall postoperative complications rate was significantly lower in the SEMS group (32.74%) than in the ES group (48.25%) (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; I² = 65%). Conclusions: In the presence of malignant colorectal obstruction, SEMS is safe and associated with the same mortality and significantly lower morbidity than the ES group. The rate of successful primary anastomosis was significantly higher than the ES group. Nevertheless, recurrence and survival outcomes are not significantly different between the two groups. The analysis of short- and long-term results can suggest the use of SEMS as a bridge to resective surgery when it is performed by an endoscopist with adequate expertise in both colonoscopy and fluoroscopic techniques and who performed commonly colonic stenting.

Diversion, resection, or stenting as a bridge to surgery for acute neoplastic left-sided colonic obstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies with curative intent

INTRODUCTION

The debate on the best surgical management strategy for acute malignant left-sided colonic obstruction is ongoing. Decompressing colostomy (DC) and stenting as a bridge to surgery (SBTS) are the currently proposed alternative approaches to emergency colectomy (EC). However, the results of a traditional meta-analysis were inconclusive. Therefore, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the three approaches for acute left-sided colonic obstruction.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of Embase, PubMed, Google Scholar and the Cochrane library was performed. A traditional meta-analysis and subsequent NMA were conducted.

FINDINGS

A significantly greater number of primary anastomoses were performed in the DC cohort than in the EC and SBTS cohorts. The 90-day mortality rate was significantly lower in the DC cohort than in the EC and SBTS cohorts. Higher costs were associated with the SBTS cohort (by US$2,000) than with the EC cohort. The locoregional recurrence rate was higher for the SBTS cohort than for the EC cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from the first NMA suggests there may be some clinical advantages associated with DC as an alternative approach to the EC and SBTS approaches for adequately selected patients with malignant large bowel obstruction.

Self-expandable metallic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery versus emergency surgery for acute malignant right-sided colorectal obstruction

Background

The use of a self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) as a bridge to surgery has increased for patients with obstructing colorectal cancer. However, relatively few reports have compared SEMS as a bridge to elective surgery for acute malignant obstruction of the right-sided colon (MORC) vs. emergency surgery (ES). This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of elective surgery after SEMS placement vs. ES for patients (including stage IV cases) with acute MORC.

Methods

Patients with acute MORC who underwent radical resection for a primary tumour from July 2008 to November 2016 at Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University were retrospectively enrolled. Postoperative short-term outcomes, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between the SEMS and ES groups.

Results

In total, 107 patients with acute MORC (35 in the SEMS group and 72 in the ES group) were included for analysis. The Intensive Care Unit admission rate was lower (11.4% vs. 34.7%, P = 0.011), the incidence of complications was reduced (11.4% vs. 29.2%, P = 0.042), and the postoperative length of hospitalisation was significantly shorter (8.23 ± 6.50 vs. 11.18 ± 6.71 days, P = 0.033) for the SEMS group. Survival curves showed no significant difference in PFS (P = 0.506) or OS (P = 0.989) between groups. Also, there was no significant difference in PFS and OS rates between patients with stage II and III colon cancer. After colectomy for synchronous liver metastases among stage IV patients, the hepatectomy rates for the SEMS and ES groups were 85.7% and 14.3%, respectively (P = 0.029). The hazard ratio for colectomy alone vs. combined resection was 3.258 (95% CI 0.858–12.370; P = 0.041).

Conclusion

Stent placement offers significant advantages in terms of short-term outcomes and comparable prognoses for acute MORC patients. For synchronous liver metastases, SEMS placement better prepares the patient for resection of the primary tumour and liver metastasis, which contribute to improved survival.

Perineural invasion is increased in patients receiving colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, there has been growing concern about the potential association of stent placement as a bridge to surgery in malignant colon obstruction and some anatomopathological findings that could lead to worsening long-term cancer outcomes, such as perineural, vascular and lymphatic invasion. The aim of the present review was to assess the pathological changes found in surgical specimens after stent placement for obstructing colon cancer vs. emergency surgery, and the impact of perineural invasion on survival rates METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Ovid and ISRCTN Registry were searched, with no restrictions. We performed four meta-analyses to estimate the pooled effect sizes using a random effect model. The outcomes were perineural, vascular and lymphatic invasion rates, and 5-year overall survival rate in patients with obstructive colon cancer, depending on the presence or absence of perineural invasion.

RESULTS

Ten studies with a total of 1273 patients were included in the meta-analysis. We found that patients in the stent group had a significantly higher risk of perineural (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.22-3.21; p = 0.006) and lymphatic invasion (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.10-1.90; p = 0.008). Furthermore, patients with positive perineural invasion had almost twice the risk of dying compared to those with no perineural invasion (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.22-3.02; p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Stent placement as a bridge to surgery in colorectal cancer patients modifies the pathological characteristics such as perineural and lymphatic invasion, and this may worsen the long-term prognosis of patients. The presence of perineural infiltration in obstructed colon cancer decreases the long-term survival of patients.